Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When people run out of a burning building it is the firefighters who run in to ensure the safety of the premises and the safety of individuals. They are willing to put their lives at risk for the sake of others and their property. They are people whom all Australians should salute. We in the coalition do so.

There is good, clear evidence that, in general terms, firefighters are healthier than the average punter when they begin their careers as firefighters. That is how we want them. In fact, that is how we need them, because of the physical tasks they are required to undertake. The sad fact is that once they come to the end of their careers as firefighters they are more likely than the rest of the community to suffer from a number of cancers. Health and fitness epidemiological studies, the study of people and their health and other matters—I will not go into the technical detail—indicate that, by all accounts, firefighters when they start their careers would be less likely than the average punter to contract various types of cancers but that at the end of their careers they are more likely to suffer cancers.

We can ask the question: why is that? I think it is pretty obvious that the reason for that unfortunate circumstance is that they go into workplaces that are different from any other Australian's. It is a workplace that cannot be controlled. People who work in factories would and should have a fair idea of the mix of chemicals and other substances in those premises. As a result, they can take precautionary measures to make sure they do not inhale or touch the various noxious substances. The firefighters workplace, of course, is so different. They are unable to determine what is in the workplace. Before they walk in they do not necessarily have a checklist about all the noxious substances they might come into contact with. It is clear that it is because of that fact that our firefighting community suffers from a greater risk of cancers than it otherwise should.

On the other side of the ledger, in the coalition's consideration of this matter, is the fundamental principle that, in general terms, he who asserts must prove: if you want to assert a matter you should have to prove it. I think that is a very strong general principle that has served us well. But from time to time there are exceptions that prove the rule. With most workplace injuries it is easy to say that on such and such a day I tripped over a loose bit of carpet and broke my leg. It is very easy to put the two together and say that because of the loose carpet somebody tripped. As a result a broken leg was suffered. However, when a firefighter has attended fire after fire and, regrettably, contracts cancer, it is difficult to say that it was this particular fire on this particular day that occasioned the cancer. Indeed, it may well have been a cocktail of noxious substances that the body came into contact with over a number of fires. To try to prove the exact linkage and cause in each individual firefighter's case would be very difficult.

That is the case that was put to me. Unfortunately, I could not attend the briefing of the coalition, but four gentlemen briefed me whilst I was in Perth, Western Australia. I compliment them on the documentation they provided to me. It was extensive, it was professional and it made out their case exceptionally well. The gentleman concerned were representatives of the United Firefighters Union of Australia. I mention Peter Marshall, Graeme Gear, Mick Farrell and Kevin Jolly, whose business cards I still retain, as I do the evidence and documentation they left with me. They presented a compelling case that convinced us in the coalition that, despite our very strong view that there is this principle that he who asserts must prove, there are occasions, unfortunately, when those good fundamental basics of our legal system also have the capacity to fail and cause an injustice. That is why the coalition, in considering all the factors, determined that this was a matter that should not be frustrated or denied passage in this parliament.

From time to time I have been known to be critical of certain elements of the Australian Greens and of union leadership. But, of course, the great exception to that is Senator Gavin Marshall, who is smiling in the chamber. As I have been talking about other exceptions that prove the rule, I believe that on this occasion, with the legislation that was introduced by Mr Adam Bandt in the other chamber along with Mr Russell Broadbent, the Liberal member for McMillan, and Ms Maria Vamvakinou, the member for Calwell, the Australian Greens, who were there at the front, did a good job—as did Mr Russell Broadbent and other members of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, from all sides, who participated.

As for the trade union leadership, it has been known from time to time that the United Firefighters Union of Australia is not necessarily the most moderate of unions within the Australian community. But that should not detract from the fact that they do, and may, from time to time come up with a proposal that is worthy of consideration. In case somebody thinks that I have been bought by the largesse of the United Firefighters Union, I have declared on my register of interests a firefighters helmet that was kindly presented to me by Mr Marshall with the name 'Abetz' written on the side. It is one of the few things in my office that attracts nearly everybody's attention, so I publicly thank the United Firefighters Union for it.

The coalition speakers who wanted to speak on this bill have kindly agreed to limit their contributions, not out of any disrespect to the gallery or the firefighters who are in a gallery today but out of respect for them, because we want to see the passage of this bill prior to question time today.

I conclude simply by congratulating the United Firefighters Union for putting a strong case that was built on evidence from northern America—the United States and Canada—which also showed, given the length of period they have had this type of legislation, that it does not open the floodgates to other claims. I also address the one final issue that some people may be concerned about, and that is that whilst we have what is called presumptive legislation it is nevertheless still rebuttable. To give an extreme example: if somebody has been a firefighter for 15 years—and I hope I do not offend anyone in the gallery—but has been a chain-smoker all his life and has attended only one fire and then develops a cancer, chances are under the legislation that would be rebuttable, and so it should be, because that evens up the ledger.

The totality of the bill that was introduced by those three members of the House of Representatives that I previously referred to and the amendments suggested by the government—all of a technical nature—that were passed in the other place, have resulted in a bill that is now in a form that we as a coalition definitely will not be opposing. I personally will be glad to see it pass. Again, I congratulate the United Firefighters Union on the way they have approached this matter.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with real pride that I rise to speak in support of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011, which was initiated by my lower house Greens colleague, Adam Bandt. I also note that in a spirit of goodwill and collaboration it was co-sponsored by a member of the government, Ms Vamvakinou, and a member of the opposition, Mr Broadbent.

Legislation of this type to provide proper protection for firefighters for the cancers they contract at a far greater rate than the ordinary population has been a long time coming. I feel fortunate that I have been able to participate in a process whereby we can pass groundbreaking legislation like this in Australia. In an environment where politics too often trumps the rightness of the decisions we should be taking, this process has been an exception. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Senate Standing Committees on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations that inquired into the original version of this bill. In particular, I pay tribute to the chair, Senator Gavin Marshall, and his colleagues from the government and the deputy chair, Senator Chris Back, and his colleagues from the opposition. Through a process of careful listening with open minds to the evidence—both the science and the human stories of the consequences of not having adequate legal protection—we were all able to appreciate the rightness of the approach taken by this legislation. Senators Marshall and Back then advocated for the bill and set about convincing their colleagues, and the end result is one we can all be proud of. It will be a significant change to the law brought about through a process of negotiation and collaboration in the national interest, which will bring benefits to those who need them. It is a triumph of policy and propriety over politics. The Australian people would be justly pleased to see their parliament operating in this way.

The process of seeing this bill on its journey through the parliament has been one of discovery for me. While sitting on the Senate inquiry into this legislation, I had an opportunity to come to understand more about the work of firefighters. Like all Australians, I admired their work and, of course, I was grateful that they are prepared to put their lives on the line to protect the broader community. Indeed, a recent survey of Australians' attitudes to the professions had firefighters come in as the second most respected profession just after paramedics—I will not dare say where politicians were ranked on that scale. Fortunately, I have not needed the services of firefighters in the past and I did not know much about the real nature of their work. It is obvious that firefighters face perils as they work to protect the community. What was a revelation to me, though, and I think also to my colleagues on the Senate inquiry, was that the greatest hazards to firefighters are not the flames and collapsing structures but the unseen chemicals that lurk in the smoke produced in modern structure fires. It is these chemicals that pose the deadliest threat to firefighters in the course of their work and it is the consequence of ingesting them—for some firefighters, the occurrence of cancer—which this legislation is aimed at addressing.

I will not dwell on the science, as it is well canvassed in the committee's report. Suffice to say that dozens of studies over 20 years in various nations have all pointed to the strong association between an elevated risk of cancers and firefighting. It is the harmful substances in the smoke and particulates emitted from the fires which cause the problem. These contain many usually unseen compounds which are taken into firefighters' bodies through their lungs or skin. According to a study in 2006, the LeMasters metastudy, firefighters are routinely exposed to harmful substances such as lead, cadmium, uranium, chemical substances, harmful minerals and various gases that may have acute toxic effects. Approximately 1,000 new chemicals are registered every year in the United States and these include carcinogenic chemicals which are released during combustion.

A disturbing aspect of the evidence before the inquiry was that, despite the established heightened risk of cancers for firefighters and the best personal protective equipment available, they cannot fully protect themselves from those risks. Although Australian firefighters use world-class safety gear and clothing which is consistent with all national and international safety regulations, it cannot and does not form an impenetrable barrier between firefighters and the toxins in their environment. That is because the clothing or protective equipment must be capable of breathing. In intensely hot conditions, with some structure fires approaching temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees Celsius, if the clothing did not breathe, firefighters would suffer heat stress and could quickly perish from metabolic heat build-up damaging their internal organs.

So despite their best efforts firefighters cannot control the hazardous environments they enter. Unlike most workers, who are encouraged to assess risks before undertaking work, firefighters must venture into unsafe workplaces as quickly as possible in order to do the job. The workplace is unknown and the hazard cannot be quantified, but they do know that carcinogens will be present. Contrary to established occupational health and safety requirements, firefighters do not have the same right to refuse unsafe work as other employees. It is the nature of the work which puts them at risk. It is humbling to understand that they do this willingly on our behalf.

The original bill contained a list of seven cancers together with respective qualifying periods but, as a result of up-to-date scientific knowledge available to the Senate inquiry and recommendations flowing from the Senate committee's report, the range of cancers has been extended in the legislation to cover a further five cancers. As data becomes clearer in relation to primary site lung cancer in nonsmokers, it is possible that this too will be included.

Having established that firefighters are at heightened risk of contracting specific cancers as a result of their work, the Senate inquiry heard that it is usually impossible for a firefighter who has contracted cancer to achieve any compensation or support from his or her employer. In order to receive compensation a firefighter must establish that their occupation was the cause of the cancer, and that can be almost impossible. Proving there was exposure to particular carcinogens in a particular fire and then establishing a direct causal link between that exposure and the illness is very difficult, requiring complex and costly legal proceedings with no guarantee of success. It is that difficulty, that impediment, that this legislation is directed at rectifying.

The Senate inquiry heard evidence from various firefighters who had contracted cancer about the costs they incurred and the income they lost as a result of the illness. In some cases they had to rely on accumulated sick leave and annual leave and lived in fear that they would exhaust their leave before they were able to return to work. In other cases they used wage protection insurance, which led to reduced income, out of which they had to pay for increased medical expenses such as chemotherapy. In one appalling piece of evidence, one firefighter was told his insurance policy had been cancelled once he returned to work in remission. When it was finally reinstated, he was told he would no longer be covered for cancer. He still pays the same premiums, although the cover has been significantly reduced. What an injustice. If he ever contracts cancer again he will not be covered.

The inquiry also heard humbling stories about firefighters relying on the assistance and charity of colleagues and friends. Clearly that is a totally unacceptable situation which has caused great hardship to firefighters and their families, and this bill is designed to rectify the situation. The bill will amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act so that where a firefighter contracts a particular form of cancer, if certain other conditions such as length of service are met, it will be presumed that the cancer is work related. There are precedents for this kind of approach in relation to other work related conditions and in other places. Presumptive legislation for firefighters was first introduced in Manitoba, Canada in 2002 and now exists in seven Canadian provinces and 43 US states.

In recognising the importance of passing this legislation, I pay tribute to the work of Alex Forrest, the Canadian firefighter and lawyer who has fought long and hard to bring the benefits of this kind of legislation to firefighters in Canada, the US and now Australia. He is also continuing his good work in other nations as well. I also acknowledge the tireless advocacy and determination of the United Firefighters Union of Australia in promoting the benefits of this legislation for firefighters in Australia, especially the national secretary, Peter Marshall, and industrial officer, Joanne Watson, among others.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have heard from witnesses whose evidence to the Senate inquiry helped to establish the strong scientific basis for this legislation as well as the need for reform. These included Ken Block, the Fire Chief of Edmonton Fire Rescue Services—a very impressive witness from Canada—and the firefighters and families who flew to Perth to speak to the committee. For many of those firefighters and families, this legislative change will come too late or will not cover them, as it applies to Commonwealth firefighters. However, these witnesses generously gave up their time and shared their very personal experiences in order to bring about long overdue change that will benefit others. Their testimony was straightforward and compelling. In conclusion, I do not think I can say it any better than it has been said by one of the firefighters who appeared before the inquiry, Ross Lindley. Ross epitomises the matter-of-fact, practical attitude that I found in abundance as I met these people. He accepts responsibility for the choices that firefighters make, knowing the risks they face. He just asks that the government, and, by extension, the parliament, accepts its responsibility to acknowledge the risks we ask people to run on our behalf and takes the appropriate action. I quote from Ross's submission:

As a fire fighter you know the risks of the job. But you take those risks to protect the community. We are asking that the Government now recognises those risks and put the proper protections in place for firefighters.

I commend this Greens bill to the Senate. If passed, it will be a credit to collaboration and multipartisanship in the interests of what is right and fair.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, let me acknowledge all the firefighters in the gallery today. I met many of you last night—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And this morning, we heard!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and indeed this morning. You are totally responsible for the rather delicate way that I am feeling today, so thank you for that! I want to echo Senator Abetz's words in commending the United Firefighters Union for running such a professional and fantastic campaign, which has culminated in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 getting through the parliament to this stage. This is the final passage of the bill through the parliament. I know you are all very proud to be here, and I am very proud that you are here and that I could play my small role in helping to get the bill here.

We are under time constraints at the moment, so I am not going to speak for a long time. I am the only person from the Labor Party, apart from the Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations, who will speak on the bill, and that is not because my colleagues did not want to speak; in fact, they all did. Every single senator on this side of the chamber—and, I expect, on the other side of the chamber—wanted to speak. So I very much speak for every one of my Senate colleagues here, who took enormous interest in the progress and development of this bill and in the facts and figures that were presented to us.

Peter, you made a compelling case. You, Mick and Wattie need to be congratulated. It has been a fantastic effort. I am very proud of this parliament too, because we are only the third jurisdiction, the third country, in the world to introduce such legislation. That is a fantastic result and another one you ought to be proud of. I ought to also say that this legislation had the personal support of the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the personal support of the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Chris Evans.

I also want to congratulate my deputy chair on the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee. The committee report is a comprehensive report. It collected all the science and all the arguments and presented them in a comprehensive document which was the basis of the legislation progressing through this parliament. Many people played a role: Senator Chris Back, as deputy chair; Senators Bilyk and Thistlethwaite from the ALP; Senators Boyce, Cash and McKenzie from the coalition; and Senator Wright from the Greens. Everyone took on the task of doing this work with enormous gusto and enthusiasm.

It became apparent to us very, very early that this was a very worthy cause. The bill does not actually establish any new rights, but it rights a wrong that was happening under the present workers compensation system. It enables firefighters to access the same right that nearly every other worker in this country has. The ability to not have to identify which fire and which particular chemical contributed to a cancer but rather to say that it is the cumulative effect of fighting fires over a period of time is a result for firefighters, because we know that the firefighter population have between two and five times—or even seven times in some instances—greater risk than the general population of contracting many types of cancer. We know, through the scientific studies that have been conducted, that that is as a consequence of their being exposed to a cocktail of chemicals throughout their professional careers. It is an enormous responsibility that they take on to save lives while putting their own lives at risk, both through the immediate danger and through the ongoing exposure. It is right and proper for the parliament to recognise that.

I am very proud, as I know everybody in this chamber is, to take this legislation forward. I am not going to go through all the justification for it, because the committee report stands for itself. I simply want to say how pleased I am. And now that Senator Abetz is back here let me also pay him a very rare compliment from me. I know that Senator Abetz, as the shadow minister for workplace relations, gave his personal support to this bill. I want to commend him on that. I would have liked to have talked for a long time and gone through all the details, but given the time constraints—we are at the end of the year's sitting period—I will say again that it was great to meet you guys last night and this morning. I will not be coming out with you again tonight! But congratulations on a great effort. Once again, I say to Peter, Mick and Wattie, all the branch secretaries, everyone who has come along and everyone who has lobbied their members of parliament: well done.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a past Chief Executive Officer of the Bush Fires Board of Western Australia, I am proud to lend my support to the passage of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011. As my colleague Senator Wright has mentioned already, it is evidence of the Senate working at its best and, of course, it is common sense. When I joined Senator Marshall this morning at eight o'clock for a meeting and learnt that he had been out during the evening with colleagues from the United Firefighters Union, I was initially very, very disappointed that I had not been invited and I wondered whether I would lend my support to the bill, but, as I saw Senator Marshall's delicate condition, in fact I was very pleased that I had not been invited!

I reiterate also the comments of Senator Marshall and say to you that, from this side of the chamber, there are many if not of all of my colleagues who wished to speak but, given the need for this legislation to be passed, they have passed up that opportunity. I do particularly want to mention Senator Sean Edwards, sitting behind me, who has given up his right to speak. Sean has told me that his first memory as a child was of their family home being burnt down. His presence in the chamber here and the fact that he gave up the opportunity to speak says volumes about his interest and concern for the passage of this bill. I also join with my leader in the Senate, Senator Abetz, in his leadership and that of our parliamentary leader, Tony Abbott, for his support of this legislation.

What is not generally understood is that this is the only civilian occupation in which the employer has no option but to send employees into a situation which they know to be dangerous and which they know they cannot avoid doing. This of course is because of the flashover, a five- to six-minute incident in which time a structure particularly will become enflamed to the extent that any occupants will surely die. Therefore a firefighter has no option, unique in civilian employment, but to go straight into a burning building in the same way that their employer has no option but to demand that they do that.

The second point which needs to be understood, and which was eloquently put by representatives of the United Firefighters Union and other witnesses, is that the very clothing that firefighters must wear is of a nature which allows their body to breathe, otherwise they would hyperventilate and simply expire as a result of overheating of the body. But it is that same clothing that allows heat to dissipate from the body that also allows carcinogens to come into the body, and this is the matter that we are discussing.

Those two points must be understood clearly: we have no option but to send firefighters in and we have no option but to expose them to these carcinogens. It is no accident that the sorts of cancers we are speaking about are those that involve the filtration systems of the body or those areas that are exposed as a result of high blood flow. So it is entirely logical, then, that the sorts of cancers we are considering are those to which firefighters will be exposed.

We know from the Canadian experience that, in 2003, seven cancers were identified; that was increased to 10 in 2007 and then to 14 in 2010. I must say that I am very pleased and proud of the collaborative approach that was adopted by members of this committee in coming to the conclusion that if in fact the evidence was there from Canada and from the United States why would we not go beyond what had been sought in the original request to this parliament and identify those cancers that can be demonstrated from scientific validation to be contracted through firefighters' exposure. It does emphasise that whilst the need is there for scientific validation, and it is around the world, we must also confirm the Australian experience. To that extent I would urge that, over time, more be invested in that activity.

As Senator Abetz and Senator Marshall have said, this confers no greater rights on employees and no greater liabilities on employers. What it does take away is the nonsense situation that existed—that is, the circumstance in which a firefighter had to prove the event, usually many years in the past, at which they actually absorbed a carcinogen. Firstly, that is of course nonsense and, secondly, we know that it is a cumulative effect. So should a firefighter in fact want to have been able to identify an event, anybody else would clearly have been able to dispute that or knock it down.

So we have arrived at a circumstance of which I think this parliament and the people of Australia can be rightly proud—that is, that logic, good common sense and an eloquent and well-developed argument and case have been put forward by the United Firefighters Union. Compliments have already been made about the two people from Canada. I think the fact that they came to this country, provided us with evidence and provided us with endorsement by their government ministers for their presence, speaks volumes of the seriousness with which this is being adopted. There has been concern, as Senator Abetz mentioned, that a circumstance must not be allowed to exist in which spurious claims are made in the future following on the precedent of this legislation. I will be very disappointed if it did, and I believe we will not see that happen.

I conclude by, firstly, joining my colleagues in complimenting the officials of the United Firefighters Union for the way in which you have gone about this whole process, the many staff and others at Geelong and at Tullamarine Airport and those in Perth and in Brisbane who generously gave their time not only to be there with us but also to demonstrate equipment. I do recall Senator Marshall and I being high over the Geelong Fire Station, overlooking Kardinia Park, and I did mention to him on that occasion that if he were to let my safety harness go and throw me over the side there would be a lot of people in Australia at that time who would have been quite happy. But Senator Marshall must not have been able to hear me because we arrived back on the ground quite safely. I also join Senator Wright in complimenting and thanking those families, including a wonderful family in Perth whose husband and father had already passed away, for their generosity and maturity in appearing before us and giving us the evidence they did.

In conclusion, can I say again how pleased I am to support this legislation. It is common sense at its best and I hope that it does give some surety into the future for a very, very fine group of people.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to commend everybody who has spoken today on the bill. My pen has been busy crossing out paragraphs so that do I not go into duplication, because I know we are under a lot of time pressure. But the very fine words that have been spoken right across the chamber I think are a testament to the commitment to this bill from both sides since its presentation to the House of Representatives by the member for McMillan and the member for Melbourne, both Victorians and who both had personal experience with the volunteer brigades in Victoria during the 2009 bushfire season. I will keep my comments short. Firefighters are asked to take risks that would be unacceptable in any other work environment. All career and volunteer members need our recognition and our thanks. For the record I would particularly like to thank Victorian firefighters, both paid and unpaid, for their efforts, their work and their dedication to the safety of Victorians in regional and metropolitan areas. I genuinely thank them for putting their lives at risk running into danger, towards the fire, when most of us are running the other way.

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill was the subject of one of my first Senate inquiries, where we examined the detail of it. It has inspired me to comment today. I would like to thank those members of the service who personally gave their stories. I also thank their families. That had a significant impact on me personally. It supported the understanding that we need a legislative framework to provide security and support for all our firefighters and their families.

The purpose of the bill is to create a legal presumption that employment is the dominant cause of certain types of cancer in the event that the firefighter has been employed for a certain period and is then diagnosed as having the disease. We recognise that their employment is the cause of their disease.

In the additional comments made to the Senate inquiry, coalition senators wholeheartedly shared the committee's majority objective of securing a workable compensatory system for firefighters who became ill with cancer related to their service. However, there was obviously recognition that some coalition senators remain to be convinced that presumptive legislation was necessarily the best mechanism to achieve this.

The bill replicates similar legislation in force in Canada and in the US. In those two jurisdictions volunteer numbers differ quite significantly from our own. Paid and unpaid firefighters are exposed to the same risks; they are all fighting fires where they can be exposed to dangers and chemicals that can impact on their health.

As a member of the committee I would like to thank the chair, Senator Marshall, and my colleague Senator Back for their approach and genuine participation in seeking a bipartisan response on this issue. I would also like to personally thank Senator Abetz for his leadership. I think it does need recognition.

I also agree with other senators' comments on the professionalism of the campaign—I love my helmet, thank you very much. In the interests of time I will finish my comments there.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In briefly summing up, so that we ensure the Senate deals with this matter as efficiently as possible, I would simply like to thank senators for their contribution to the debate and not reiterate the many points that have been made throughout the debate.

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill will significantly improve workers compensation arrangements for firefighters. It aligns Commonwealth legislation with laws that are already in place across North America. As we have heard, the provisions have been subject to considerable consultation, including through an inquiry of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee and also by the Commonwealth government with the ACT government and the United Firefighters Union.

These are important improvements and the government is pleased, indeed proud, to support them, and I do so now.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.